Where there's a Will, there's a way

A recent Gatehouse news headline declares, "Schock: Congressional bipartisanship a good omen for 2011."

That sounds like good news! We need more Republican Congressman who will set aside the past two years of obstruction.

But it started to sound less appealing when I read down the article.

"The president deserves credit for bringing his party along and getting them to move to the center," Schock said.

"I think this is a good sign for 2011," Schock said. "So long as the president continues to exhibit this kind of leadership, I believe the Republican House will want to continue to work with him to take up America's challenges."

Lame-duck accomplishments for Democrats included an arms reduction treaty with Russia and the repeal of the military's ban on gays serving openly, Schock said.

The funny thing about Schock's comment is that he praises Obama for moving Democrats, but gives no indication that Republicans might compromise as well. He gives a very conditional prediction of bipartisanship that depends on Obama moving to the right. Apparently, he thinks bipartisanship is something that's good for others to practice, but not for him.

Schock's position looks no different than that of his friend and fellow Congressman John Shimkus, who declared that the Republicans would "just say no" to Obama for two years. I have to admit that the strategy paid off for Republicans in the recent election. It hurt America, but it was an effective partisan tactic.

I'm interested to see if one of Schock's resolutions for the new year will be trying out bipartisanship for himself instead of expecting it only from others.

Posted by Will at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Why is America's largest environmental group supporting Senate filibuster reform? Sierra Club recently emailed its members with six reasons why tree-huggers should call their Senators in support of changing the Senate rules.

Reason #6: Because Senate rules are as outdated as Ebenezer Scrooge's labor practices.
Reason #5: Because laws that pass the Senate are more watered down than your office party's eggnog.
Reason #4: Because it's cheaper to fix the Senate than to buy a new one, though it is for sale (thanks Citizens United!)
Reason #3: Because solutions to America's most pressing problems shouldn't sit on the shelf for months like Aunt Millie's fruitcake.
Reason #2: Because the Senate moves slower than the airport security line during the holidays.

The email goes on to give a serious explanation of why this is an environmental issue.

Our nation used to be able to move forward on policies to protect clean air and water. But today, we only see outrageous obstruction, increasing gridlock, and backroom dealing that help corporate polluters and special interests while selling out regular Americans.

Sierra Club supports the Fix The Senate Now coalition, which is urging Senators to change the rules at the start of the next session. As a Sierra Club member, it's gratifying to see the organization confront what has been a major source of frustration.

On the positive side, President Obama did more to protect the environment and slow climate change during his first two years than Bill Clinton did in two terms combined. Successes like improving car fuel economy, investing in renewable energy, efficiency projects in the stimulus bill, Cash for Clunkers, beefing up EPA regulations, and building high-speed rail are arguably enough to already declare Obama the greatest clean energy President in American history. After mentioning clean energy in every major speech (including his address to Congress about health care) Obama helped push a cap-and-trade bill through the House of Representatives.

Amidst the success of these past two years, the Senate brings the celebration to a halt, like finding a turd floating in the pool at your swim party. Their failure to vote on a climate change bill is bitterly disappointing.

Even a mediocre bill may have helped strengthen Obama's hand to negotiate a climate change treaty at talks in Copenhagen and Cancun. The lack of a vote on cap-and-trade left other nations wondering if any climate treaty could pass the Senate and whether the world's largest per-capita carbon emitter has the necessary resolve.

The Senate's refusal to act was a global epic failure. It's time to break out the pool skimmer and fix this mess.

This is yet another cross-posting from Democrats for Progress.

Posted by Will at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I didn't recognize Dana Milbank's name when I read a forum discussion post about his December 23 Washington Post column. The point of his recent column appears to be that Obama got a little too uppity when bragging about what he accomplished during the last two years. He goes on to chide the press corp for failing to treat Obama like the creepy uncle at Christmas dinner.

Looking through Milbank's past columns, it doesn't take long to notice the pattern of "analysis" that Obama should give up on liberal agenda items along side predictions that he soon will. I realized why I never read him after seeing such titles as "Would we be better off under a President Hillary Clinton?" and "Nostalgic for George W. Bush." His effluent praise of anything Clinton would make Monica blush. He could author a how-to guide for discouraging the left and dividing Democrats.

It's obvious that Milbank is campaigning against Obama, but there was something more personal about his latest gripe. Why the petty mention of Obama's heavy makeup covering his lip injury? Why the catty advice to "please park the celebration" and not unlearn the "valuable lesson in humility" of the mid-term election?

I suspect the reason for his nasty tone is revealed by the first comment from Obama quoted in the column.

"A lot of folks in this town predicted that, after the midterm elections, Washington would be headed for more partisanship and more gridlock," he said to a roomful of people who had predicted just that. "And instead, this has been a season of progress for the American people."

Interesting. Could one of those false prophets of gloom in the room have been Dana Milbank? Why yes, he was!

His cynical December 1st column about the "slurpee summit" included the following:

For the duration of the lame-duck Congress, it appears that those differences will prevent much of substance from getting done... Actions beyond the Band-Aid variety - immigration, energy, tackling the federal deficit - will have to wait.

Oops. It all makes sense now! Milbank is lashing out in a personal way because Obama made him feel like a clueless hack who gets things horribly wrong. I fully understand why he has insecurities about that issue.

I'm spreading Christmas cheer by cross-posting this from Democrats for Progress.

Posted by Will at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was looking online for after-Christmas sales on books when I saw Rod Blagojevich's for a steep discount. Only $2.99.

Still not interested.

Posted by Will at 1:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Once in a while I hear this statement made by someone attempting to diminish the role Lincoln played in ending slavery. It's partially true.

The Emancipation Proclamation freed very few slaves on the day it was issued. It only freed those in areas still rebelling against the Union. Of course, Lincoln had no actual power to free those slaves in areas under Confederate control. At least not when it was issued.

It also allowed states to maintain legal slavery if they rejoined the union. It permitted people to keep their slaves in border states under Union control, like Kentucky.

These facts are often pointed out to make the Proclamation seem like an insignificant act on Lincoln's part. There were people in his time who felt the same way. It angered abolitionists who wanted more decisive action to end slavery immediately. It angered the other side, who believed the war was about saving the Union, not slavery. And it didn't entice any states to rejoin the Union, as Lincoln hoped it might. In the short term, it was an unpopular, failed attempt at compromise.

But that's not the whole story. The Emancipation Proclamation did free slaves as Union armies advanced into Confederate territory. That became official policy for the remainder of the war as Sherman marched into the Deep South. After it was issued, many of those Northern regiments would be made up of African-American soldiers. It established beyond doubt that they were waging a war to end slavery.

Additionally, it set the stage for the introduction of a constitutional amendment ending slavery, which Lincoln wrote. Although it didn't seem like much right away, the Proclamation did lead to the end of slavery.

Why bring this up? Obama idolizes Lincoln and has long studied him.

What does Obama mean when he talks about taking a long-term view? What does he mean when he talks about things that may seem insignificant but will create structural change for the future? What does he mean by saying that he'll do things which aren't popular now but need to be done for long-term benefit?

This is what means. There are people who don't believe that much of significance has happened for the past two years, just as there were people in Lincoln's time who thought the Emancipation Proclamation was a useless attempt at compromising with the South. Despite the compromises he's forced to make, Obama will keep working methodically to move the ball forward.

Over time, the results will become plainer to see, even if Obama gets little credit for laying the groundwork. Sometimes it will happen in undramatic ways, such as EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses or the Federal Reserve's role in completing details of the new financial reform law.

Progress in America has always come step-by-step, through struggle and disappointment. This period of progress will be no different.

Cross-posting note: I try to keep my blog focused on environmental politics at the state and local level. This post was written for a new blog and discussion forum with a national focus called Democrats for Progress that I'll be contributing to on occasion.

Posted by Will at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I wasn't going to write anything because it didn't seem respectful. But, I appreciated hearing people share their reflections on WMAY, and I noticed that people are finding their way to this blog by searching his name.

I only had half a dozen or so conversations with Mayor Davlin which were mostly small talk. Like everyone else in Springfield, I remember how welcoming and friendly he was. Even when he had something to be annoyed at, he reacted with a joke and a smile. I was a little jealous that he had a better politician smile than me.

Most of my interaction with Tim was due to my role as a local Sierra Club leader. I was worried he would back away from environmental issues and the Sierra Club after the clean energy agreement with CWLP became so controversial. Instead of backing down, he went on to declare Springfield a Cool City and pledged to do more. I was thrilled at the Cool Cities press conference when he said how proud he was of the CWLP-Sierra Club agreement. More recently, he told a meeting of the Cool Cities Advisory Council that he wanted to put Springfield at the top of "Green City" lists.

The fact that he didn't first run on a platform of being an environmental mayor makes me respect his commitment even more. I know some people dismiss the Sierra Club agreement because they think the city was "forced" into it and had no other option. But, there were other utilities in the same situation that didn't have the foresight or willingness to work out that kind of compromise. It wasn't easy.

Davlin received more praise for the clean energy agreement in the national press than he did locally. Personally, I'll remember him as the friendly mayor who oversaw one of the best decisions Springfield ever made.

Posted by Will at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First, the Senate is useless because they aren't even talking about voting on an energy bill in the lame duck session.

And let's face the fact that we can't blame this entirely on Republicans. Harry Reid is protecting certain Democratic Senators who are in the pockets of the coal and oil industry from having to take a controversial vote. Yes, I'm looking at you Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin, among others.

The only saving grace is that a Senate energy bill might have been so overloaded with subsidies for coal that it could have ended up being worse than doing nothing. The fact that industry is so nervous about EPA regulating greenhouses gasses indicates that it's probably an effective way to keep making progress.

The Senate is also useless because they blocked or watered down every proposal Obama sent them for two years. When they should have been dealing with pressing, life-and-death issues of the day, they passed a bill to limit the volume of TV commercials. WTF?!

Doesn't anyone on Capitol Hill understand that Democrats didn't show up to vote in the recent election because the Senate blocked major parts of the change we voted for in '08? Now is the time to finish their incomplete work from the past two years!

At least things are changing during the lame duck session. Senate Democrats are finally starting to get angry and show a little spine. Of course, they aren't standing up to Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Senate Republicans who have been pouting roadblocks.

Instead, they're standing up to a Democratic President! You know, the same guy conservative Democratic Senators (and Russ Feingold) have been failing to support for the past two years. The Senate finally grows a pair and all they can do is fight a President of their own party who's trying to extend unemployment, cut payroll taxes, and keep education tax credits.

Congratulations President Obama! You did what I thought was impossible. You made the Democratic Senate finally stand up for themselves.

If the past two years is the best Harry Reid can do then it's time for him to step down as Majority Leader (while Democrats are still in the majority).

Posted by Will at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's one Taylorville resident's video representation of looking for answers about the proposed coal plant.

Shouldn't the local press be asking these questions too?

Posted by Will at 1:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The State Journal-Register editorial in favor of the proposed Taylorville coal plant repeated much of the hyperbolic spin advanced by the Tenaska Company. But for this post, I'm going to pick on their use of the popular argument that so-called clean coal is a "bridge technology" while we develop real clean energy.

They claim:

Wind and solar power are the cleanest, and one day will be our main sources of power. But all evidence points to that time being many years in the future. With coal abundant and economically feasible, we believe processes like the one to be used in Taylorville are the best bridges to our clean energy future.

According to the Illinois Commerce Commission, the Taylorville coal plant would be more expensive than other alternatives, including wind and natural gas. Despite the SJ-R's claim, it's not economically feasible compared to other power sources. The reason they need government subsidies and guarantees is that a competitive market won't support this project.

Other alternatives are more scientifically proven and market tested than clean coal projects. There's no carbon capture project of this size anywhere in the United States. Once again, wind and solar make better "bridge" technologies than the Taylorville project because they're already developed. There are even large scale solar projects being built faster than new coal plants.

In fact, there's only one thing that could result in wind and solar not being further developed until "years into the future:" Manipulation of the market by government to favor the coal industry.

The solar industry is already being developed right now in other Midwestern states. Why not in Illinois? Because we're busy chasing the empty promises and false hope of economic development through subsidizing a dying industry. Downstate is expect to wait around for the mines to reopen while other regions get real clean energy jobs. It isn't going to work.

Posted by Will at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)